Apple damages case overturned

A US Court has overturned the verdict of a patent infringement case that saw Apple ordered to pay $625.5m in damages.

by
Ben Camm-Jones| 05 Apr 11

﻿

X

Email this to a friend

Characters remaining:

What is A + B?

A US Court has overturned the verdict of a patent infringement case that saw Apple ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Last October, Apple was ordered by a federal jury to pay $625.5m (around £385m) in damages to Mirror Worlds after a jury found that Apple had infringed multiple patents that apply to displaying information on mobile devices and computer screens.

At the time, Apple argued that the amount of damages - awarded due to infringements of Mirror Worlds' patents concerning the way a document is displayed on a computer screen - was too high.

Mirror Worlds alleged that Apple's Spotlight, Time Machine and Cover Flow features infringed its patents, though Apple challenged the validity of the patents.

Bloomberg reports that a federal judge in Texas this week threw out the case, saying Apple had not infringed the three patents in question.

The judge did uphold the validity of Mirror Worlds' patents. However, he said that the jury's verdict in the 2010 case had been influenced by arguments presented by Mirror Worlds that had not presented all of the facts.

"Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law," US District Judge Leonard Davis said.

During the October case, a dispute rose over "triple dipping" made by an opposing attorney during closing arguments to the jury.

"During closing, Mirror Worlds' counsel showed the jury a 'sample' verdict form with damages amounts on a per patent basis of $322 [million], $336 [million], and $320 million -- a sum of nearly $1 billion," Apple's emergency motion filed after the October verdict stated.

The motion went on to accuse Mirror Worlds' attorney of pushing "triple dipping" on the jury. "This ... gave the jury the impression that those amounts would be cumulative," Apple asserted.